[Fluffy]

When defenders are missinformed that declarer has a certain suit when he actually has another, but then they don't even count or use any logic, they just blindly keep playing declarer's suit (the one he has, but he is not suposed to) untill declarer finally makes a stupid contract, should there be adjustement?

What if defenders are bad (unable to count) and it is apparent that they would not blindly lead declarer's suit if they had the right info, althou they could (should) have worked it out?

[blackshoe]

I do not think that the mere fact of MI should absolve a pair of the need to play the game. If it should, then the laws would say "there was MI. Give the NOS A+ and the OS A-, and move on to the next board". OTOH, each case should be adjudicated on its own merits, and to do that we would need all the facts.

[bluejak]

The legalities are such that if there is MI, and damage therefrom, you adjust for the offending side. You also adjust for the non-offending side, except that you do not adjust for that amount of damage that was caused by wild or gambling action by the non-offending side after the infraction, or by a serious error not connected to the infraction. What constitutes SEWoG [our abbreviation for this, standing for serious error, wild or gambling action] is a judgement matter and is often argued here and on other forums.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-March-06, 17:11, said:

The legalities are such that if there is MI, and damage therefrom, you adjust for the offending side. You also adjust for the non-offending side, except that you do not adjust for that amount of damage that was caused by wild or gambling action by the non-offending side after the infraction, or by a serious error not connected to the infraction. What constitutes SEWoG [our abbreviation for this, standing for serious error, wild or gambling action] is a judgement matter and is often argued here and on other forums.

If there is a Serious Error (not judged to be Wild or Gambling), is it unconnected to the infraction if the infraction resulted in the NOS being put in the position of defending a contract that they should never have been defending?

[aguahombre]

Great question.

That was my +1

[Jaom]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-06, 19:25, said:

If there is a Serious Error (not judged to be Wild or Gambling), is it unconnected to the infraction if the infraction resulted in the NOS being put in the position of defending a contract that they should never have been defending?

Well...

Law 12C1b said:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.
Source: http://www.pzbs.pl/m...7/ang/law12.htm

A serious error while defending a contract which is a result of an infraction is definately still an error mentioned in L12 and the adjusted score given to NOS should reflect the self-inflicted damage.
A classic example is making a revoke during defending a slam reached using an infraction. The Serious Error has been described in Ton Kooijaman's Commentary to the Laws (pages 2, 3 and 4).

The phrase "unrelated to infraction" should be applied to situations when the infraction itself is not the very cause of the error - eg. a revoke made by NOS while defending.

Fluffy, on 2011-March-06, 14:54, said:

What if defenders are bad (unable to count) and it is apparent that they would not blindly lead declarer's suit if they had the right info, althou they could (should) have worked it out?

As long as it was natural for them to allow the declarer to make his contract having bad information - yes, they need full compensation. (IMHO)

[bluejak]

It does not matter that people are defending a contract they should not have to - that is obvious, since that is always the case when they are defending and you are considering adjusting, with the very rare exceptions where the only possible adjustment is th number of tricks made.

No doubt what you are doing is thinking that seems unfair. Sure, and this is discussed again and again and again in various ways. But there is no point discussing it, except perhaps in Changing Laws & Regulations, since the answer is always the same: if you do not like it, go argue with th lawmakers. It is clearly the intention of the Law since the Law would not exist otherwise.

[jallerton]

Fluffy, on 2011-March-06, 14:54, said:

When defenders are missinformed that declarer has a certain suit when he actually has another, but then they don't even count or use any logic, they just blindly keep playing declarer's suit (the one he has, but he is not suposed to) untill declarer finally makes a stupid contract, should there be adjustement?

What if defenders are bad (unable to count) and it is apparent that they would not blindly lead declarer's suit if they had the right info, althou they could (should) have worked it out?

bluejak, on 2011-March-06, 17:11, said:

The legalities are such that if there is MI, and damage therefrom, you adjust for the offending side. You also adjust for the non-offending side, except that you do not adjust for that amount of damage that was caused by wild or gambling action by the non-offending side after the infraction, or by a serious error not connected to the infraction. What constitutes SEWoG [our abbreviation for this, standing for serious error, wild or gambling action] is a judgement matter and is often argued here and on other forums.

I agree with Bluejak, but would like to add that the judgement of what constitutes "SEWoG" is interpreted as depending on the standard of the player involved. If the defenders normally defend like this: remembering the bidding but not stopping to recount the hand, then they have probably not taken a "SEWoG" action. However, if Fluffy and his regular partner had found the same defence, it is far more likely that it would be judged as "SEWoG".